Toolkit Summary for COTE launch 201102

Costing the Earth
Information for sentencers
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS A SAMPLE OF THE
TOOLKIT AND DOES NOT THEREFORE CONTAIN ALL
THE CASE STUDIES REFERRED TO IN THE INDEX
Foreword
The despoliation of the environment is arguably the gravest of all the problems we
are going to hand on to our children and grandchildren. They will not thank us –
particularly those of us who work in the administration of justice – for having
done too little about it at a time when action and prevention were feasible.
All criminal justice is complicated: there are at least two sides to every story, and
sentencers have to be alive to them all. But environmental crime, if established,
strikes not only at a locality and its population but in some measures too at the
planet and its future. Nobody should be allowed to doubt its seriousness or to
forget that one side of the environmental story is always untold.
And this is why everyone concerned with environmental protection has a use for a
practical handbook like the present one: a toolkit to help keep the machinery of
justice in motion.
The Rt Hon Lord Justice Sedley
Royal Courts of Justcie
London
Acknowledgements
The Magistrates‟ Association is grateful for the support and assistance in preparing
Costing the Earth and in particular to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, the Environment Agency, and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature for
providing information and case studies. The Association would also like to thank the
following for their kind support and assistance Sid Brighton, Nigel Cadbury, Stephen
Day, Dudley Thomas and Tim Workman.
Editor
Paul Stookes is a solicitor, a member of the Institute of Environmental Management and
Assessment and Chief Executive of the Environmental Law Foundation. He has written
numerous articles and reports on environmental and planning law and recently co-
authored Environmental Action: a guide for communities and individuals.
Disclaimer: This tool kit uses fictitious characters to aid training. None of the characters or companies
referred to in this tool kit is meant to relate to any person, organisation or body in the past, present or
future. Any similarity between any person, organisation or body either living or deceased is entirely
accidental and is not meant to offend. (needs the right wording).
Contents
PART I GENERAL
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose and need of the tool kit
1.2 Structure of the tool kit
1.3 Information sessions
2 Costing the earth: the importance of environmental protection
2.1 What is sustainable development?
2.2 The UK Sustainable Development Strategy
3 Assessing the seriousness of environmental offences
3.1 The overall impact of environmental crime
3.2 The wider effects in environmental, social and economic terms
3.3 The economic gain for the defendant
3.4 State of mind of the defendant
3.5 Relationship with regulatory authorities
3.6 Assessing the potential harm and risks taken
3.7 Human fatalities, serious injury or ill health
3.8 Health of flora and fauna
3.9 Offence pattern
3.10 Licensing
3.11 Mitigation
4 Sentencing criteria for environmental offences
4.1 Seriousness
4.2 Ability to pay
4.3 Economic gain
4.4 Polluter pays principle
4.5 Abatement costs
4.6 Prosecution costs
4.7 Refer to Crown Court
4.8 Form of sentencing
PART II CASE STUDIES
5 Air Quality
5.1 Black smoke
5.2 Odour
6 Animal Health
6.1 Illegal meat imports
7 Fisheries
7.1 Poaching fish 1
7.2 Poaching fish 2
7.3 Unlicensed fishing
7.4 False landing declarations
8 Genetic Modification
8.1 GMO breach of licence
9 Health and Safety
9.1 Asbestos
9.2 Chemical in eyes
9.3 Timber preservative
10 Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
10.1 Colourless gas discharge
10.2 Effluent into river
10.3 Escape of acid gas
11 Land use and public space
11.1 Dog fouling
12 Pesticides
12.1 Bees poisoned by spray
12.2 Conditions of use of pesticide
13 Radioactive substances
13.1 Lost radioactive source
13.2 Radioactivity in the laboratory
13.3 Unregistered cobalt source
14 Statutory Nuisance and Noise
14.1 Dust
14.2 Poor housing
15 Waste
15.1 Avoiding trade waste contract
15.2 Fly tipping: branches and concrete
15.3 Fly tipping: children‟s party waste
15.4 Dumping from skips
15.5 Dumping on farmland
15.6 Landfill site odours
15.7 Rubbish and rats in rear garden
15.8 Scrap in residential area
15.9 Litter abatement order
15.10 Producer responsibility for packaging
16 Water
16.1 Human sewage
16.2 Pollution in surface drains
16.3 Sheep dip contamination
17 Wildlife and nature conservation
17.1 Bird dealer
17.2 Birds of prey: captive breeding
17.3 Geese shooting
17.4 Herbal medicines
17.5 Illegal trade in birds
17.6 Illegal trade in reptiles
17.7 Illegal trade: taxidermy
PART III FURTHER INFORMATION AND APPENDICES
18 Conclusions
18.1 Quick reference guide
18.2 Judicial opinions
19 Relevant organisations
20 Appendices
Fining of Companies for Environmental and Health and Safety Offences
Sentencing for Wildlife Trade and Conservation Offences
PART I GENERAL
1 Introduction
This tool kit has been designed to be used in 2 distinct ways. It can be used as a quick
reference guide for anyone wishing to clarify a particular point. Section 18 provides an
„at a glance‟ guide to the case studies covering particular aspects of environmental
cases. It can also be used as the resource materials for an information event on
environmental sentencing and law. To assist, Section 1.3 offers guidance for anyone
wishing to use the tool kit as a basis for an information session. Whichever way you
wish to use the tool kit, the purpose, key aims and rationale for the tool kit is identical.
1.1 Purpose of the tool kit
Over the last 15 years the introduction of a range of environmental legislation has
resulted in improved standards being required from those handling and/or potentially
causing pollution. The activities carried out by certain individuals in relation to wildlife
are regarded more and more as unacceptable, while levels of general environmental
awareness among the public has grown. As a result, an increasing number of
environmental cases are reaching court. Yet the area of environmental crime remains
comparatively novel to magistrates, partly because the number of environmental crimes
being prosecuted is relatively low compared to, say, traffic offences. It is essential that
magistrates are properly informed about these matters so that they can impose penalties
that properly reflect the severity of the case.
The primary purpose of this tool kit is to assist magistrates, their legal advisers and
anyone else with an interest in environmental crime, about the many aspects of
environmental law. It should provide experience and expertise in evaluating cases in
order to ensure that the criminal justice system works effectively and appropriately in
sentencing those found guilty of environmental offences.
Many of the offences under environmental legislation are of strict liability and for this
reason the tool kit does not go into detail about the merits of a case or consider the
evidence in support or defence of any action. Its key aims are set out below.
Key aims
 To explain the effects of a range of pollution and other offences relating to the
environment.
 To clarify some of the more complex and technical aspects of environmental
offences.
 To raise awareness among magistrates of environmental impacts and the
legislation and case-law relating to environmental crimes.
The tool kit is designed to clarify areas of environmental sentencing and, in particular,
the way that it may impact on judicial decision-making. It should be easy to use and
allow selection of particular areas of study or consideration without having to read the
whole text. It follows a consistent format throughout selecting key areas that should
assist magistrates‟ judicial decision-making. In essence, there are 2 key parts involved
in determining the defendant‟s sentence:
 assessing the seriousness of the offence (something explored in Section 3) and,
 considering the range of sentencing criteria available (as explained in Section 4).
It is likely that there may be some areas of overlap but broadly it is a two-stage process.
For this reason, each stage has a dedicated section and there is also guidance in the case
studies on the respective stages.
The need for environmental sentencing information
While environmental crimes and cases are relatively rare compared to, say, motoring
offences, the impacts of the crimes can be significant. This seriousness is demonstrated
through the enactment of legislation that specifically provides for maximum sentences
to be as much as four times higher than the standard sentencing levels. The seriousness
is also shown by the fact that many of the offences created by statute are of strict
liability.
There has been some concern that the level of fines and sentences given in
environmental cases are not high enough. This has led to situation where, for some
unscrupulous companies and individuals, it is cheaper to commit an offence and
continue to pay the fines rather than to comply with the law and pay the real cost,
including the environmental and social cost, of polluting.
There is therefore a need to ensure that magistrates, prosecutors and anyone else
involved in a case are aware of the potential to secure an effective conviction even
though the cases that come before the court are not very frequent. It is hoped that this
tool kit clarifies the wide scope of environmental crimes and the broader impacts of the
offences that can be committed. The criminal justice system should, particularly in
environmental cases, act as a preventative mechanism as well as a form of punishment
for wrongdoers. In this sense, the judiciary, prosecutors and legal advisors have a
genuine and significant role to play in environmental protection, equal to the largest
environmental groups such as WWF, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.
1.2 Structure of the tool kit
The tool kit comprises 3 parts:
Part I provides an overview of the principles behind environmental sentencing and what
particular actions and criminal activities may mean for both human health and the
environment.
Part II is a detailed consideration of the wide range of environmental aspects and the
law. Each section is sub-divided into a number of case studies. The case studies follow a
set structure:
 An outline of the relevant legislation.
 The facts of the case.
 Guidance on assessing the seriousness of the offence(s).
 Sentencing criteria.
Part III provides further information which includes recently published guidance notes
on sentencing wildlife and conservation offences.
Section 18 provides a quick reference guide to consider other case studies with similar
issues. There is also a judicial opinion in Section 18 of the tool kit for many of the case
studies. Although these should only be referred to after the relevant case study has been
tackled and a sentence been considered. Importantly, the opinions are only suggested
guidance.
1.3 Information sessions
Effective sentencing for environmental crimes will depend on the knowledge and skills
of everyone associated with the case including prosecutors, legal advisers and
magistrates. Information sessions can provide a vital role in securing the skills required
but it should be carefully planned to be effective. The „hidden‟ cost of taking busy
people away from their job is generally greater than the direct costs of providing a
venue, catering, expenses etc.
The session should be designed to meet the needs of participants; identifying those
needs is vital. It should be thought provoking as well as improve understanding. Above
all, it should be of value to participants. As the tool kit demonstrates, environmental law
covers a broad range of areas and it is important that this message is conveyed before,
during and after the session(s).
Organiser’s guidance
The information session element of the tool kit is as essential as the core materials of
the tool kit. There will need to be a designated person that takes overall responsibility
for organising the event. This may be someone associated with the magistrates, such as
a legal adviser or an independent trainer invited along for the session. An independent
trainer with appropriate expertise should always be a serious option because they will
have experience in legal and socio-environmental matters and also because they draw
upon those outside experiences.
Outlined below is a suggested format that uses the tool kit most effectively. Box 1
provides a model timetable.
9.45 Arrival and registration
10.00 Introductions: delegates and speaker(s)
10.10 Overview of sustainable development & the law
10.30 Session 1: Case study
11.05 Break
11.20 Session 2: Case study
11.55 Session 3: Case study
12.30 Conclusions
12.45 Close
Box 1: Model timetable
It is envisaged that anything between 5 and 20 participants can attend any one session.
More people can attend but the style and content of the session would need to be
adjusted and tailored to suit the increase in numbers.
When considering case studies, it is recommended that participants work in groups of
between 4 and 6 people. As a rule of thumb, it is estimated that for each case study
around 5 minutes be spent reading the case study and a further 20 minutes be spent on
discussion and deciding on an appropriate sentence. 10 minutes should be allocated for
each group to provide a summary report to the main group.
It is recommended that up to 3 case studies are covered during a 1/2-day session and
that each sub-group carrying out the case studies choose separate cases.
Specialist input will always be useful but if this not possible then the following points
will assist :
 „Walk through‟ each part of the session, thinking about your own response to the
likely questions.
 Pre-select the most relevant case studies for the participants due to attend the
session. For example, if the local region has an international port then the case
studies involving illegal trade in reptiles or unlicensed fishing may be
appropriate, whereas in a rural area it may be more appropriate to consider cases
involving sheep dip contamination or public rights of way.
 Become familiar with the case studies selected and any questions (and the
responses) that may follow the study.
 Rehearse the questions with someone who does have relevant knowledge.
 Importantly, if a matter arises that is beyond your knowledge or expertise, admit
it without hesitation and ask if anyone else attending the session can assist. If
not, offer to find out and report back after the session.
 During the introductory talk at the beginning of the session set out the „ground
rules‟ for the event ie, only 1 person speaking at a time, that everyone should be
encouraged to participate, ensure that note taking and reporting back is shared
among sub-group members. Finally, ensure that sensitive matters are not
attributed to individuals without explicit agreement.
2 Costing the earth: the importance of sustainable development
2.1 What is sustainable development?
One of the most popular definitions of sustainable development is from the Brundtland
Commission Report 1987:
“Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This may be put more simply as:
“Please leave this planet as you would wish to find it”
At present, we are not achieving sustainable development because we are:
 Using up natural resources and energy faster than the earth can replenish them
 Producing waste and pollution faster than the earth can accommodate them
There are a number of examples of this:
 Waste. In the UK, every household generates around 1/2 a tonne of waste every
year, and the rate is rising at 3% per annum. The Government is trying to tackle
this by increasing the cost of disposal as landfill sites become scarce and the
incineration of waste is becoming more unpopular with the public. The
increasing cost of waste disposal results in more pressure and incentive to
dispose of waste illegally such as illegal burning and fly tipping.
 Wildlife. The increasing pressure on habitats and wildlife causes the population
of many species to go into decline. This means that the financial value of
vulnerable species to collectors increases. In turn the payback in illegal trade of
such species can be greater and more attractive to animal traders.
 Over fishing. The European Commission recently predicted that a total ban on
fishing for cod, haddock and whiting in UK coastal waters was now necessary.
Often, the environmental court cases are the response to the legislative action taken in
pursuit sustainable development. There are a number of other examples that are not so
readily apparent but are nevertheless as significant, these include:
 Climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of
over 700 scientists from across the world, have recently stated that climate
change occurring is more likely than not a result of the human induced global
warming and the emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change is evident by
the fact that the average surface temperature of the earth increased by 0.5o
Celsius last century while the sea level around the UK is rising an average of 1
cm every 10 years. We are witnessing more extreme weather patterns; with a
very wet winter in 2000 resulting in widespread flooding followed by an
unusually mild autumn the following year. On a global scale, climate change is
producing more unstable and extreme weather patterns with violent storms
devastating large areas of the world. In November 1999, a cyclone devastated
parts of eastern India killing up to 10,000 people and in the following month
over 30,000 people died in violent storms in Venezuela.
 Noise. Noise is unwanted sound; and it appears to be on the rise. Certainly the
number of complaints about noise has increased dramatically over the last 15
years to around 300,000 each year. It is a pollutant because it can seriously
damage the quality of life and often the physical, psychological and social
circumstances of those exposed to it. Noise complaints are one of the most
frequently encountered forms of statutory nuisance.
2.2 The UK Sustainable Development Strategy
The UK Government has prepared and is implementing a Sustainable Development
Strategy in order to help tackle the growing problem facing us today and importantly
our children tomorrow. It suggests that there are 4 aspects to sustainable development:
 Effective protection of the environment
 Prudent use of natural resources
 Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone
 Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment
Frequently, these are regarded as the key pillars of the environment, social progress and
economic development.
Effective protection of the environment (environment)
We must act to limit global environmental threats, such as climate change;
to protect human health and safety from hazards such as poor air quality and
toxic chemicals; and to protect things, which people need or value, such as
wildlife, landscapes, and historic buildings.
Prudent use of natural resources (environment)
This does not mean denying ourselves the use of non-renewable resources
like oil and gas, but we do need to make sure that we use them efficiently
and that alternatives are developed to replace them in due course.
Renewable resources, such as water, should be used in ways that do not
endanger the resource or cause serious damage or pollution.
Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone
Everyone should share in the benefits of increased prosperity and a clean
and safe environment. We have to improve access to services, tackle social
exclusion, and reduce harm to health caused by poverty, poor housing,
unemployment and pollution. Our needs must not be met by treating others,
including future generations and people elsewhere in the world unfairly.
Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and
employment
Everyone should be able to share in high living standards and greater job
opportunities.
The environmental cases that arise will have at least 1 and often 2 or more aspects of
sustainable development. For example:
 Abandoned rubbish will have an impact on the aspects of the environment and
society through danger to human and animal health (caused by likelihood of rat
infestation). It will also have an economic impact through the financial cost in
clearance and disposal rubbish.
 The pollution of watercourses will have an impact on the natural resources by
contaminating water supplies and could adversely affect the health of humans,
flora and fauna. Again, it will also have a financial impact through the cost of
any remediation work.
3 Assessing the seriousness of environmental offences
As outlined in Section 1, there are 2 key parts involved in determining the defendant‟s
sentence:
 The seriousness of the offence (discussed in this section).
 A range of sentencing criteria (considered in Section 4).
There will often be areas of overlap in the 2 stages and, very broadly, assessing
seriousness in this context will mean considering the wider broad environmental
consequences and impacts of an offence, while the second stage of sentencing criteria
focuses more specifically on the sentencing, including the seriousness of the offence,
but also considering ability to pay and the prosecution costs. This section concentrates
on the actual or potential impacts.
In line with the Government‟s sustainable development strategy (outlined in Section 2.2
above) the full extent of the impact of any offence needs to be assessed and taken into
consideration. These will not only include direct environmental impacts (eg water
pollution, loss of species or contamination of land) but also the social and economic
impacts (eg health problems from air pollution, litter and aesthetic value of
neighbourhood, loss of work due to ill health, commercial advantage by non-
compliance).
The culpability of the defendant should also be assessed (eg extent of involvement in
crime, motivation and co-operation with regulatory authorities). Highlighting the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances surrounding the case can help to illustrate the
seriousness of an environmental offence.
Environmental offences are generally based on strict liability. In these cases, the
defendant is responsible regardless of blameworthiness or fault. The prosecution has no
need to prove fault or guilty knowledge. This is quite deliberate and is due in part to the
heavy obligation on operators due to the inherent risks in the processes and materials
they handle. The extent of the blameworthiness can increase or decrease depending on
the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
3.1 The overall impact of environmental crime
What is the overall impact of the crime? Consider the environmental, social and
economic impact as discussed above in terms of sustainable development.
 Environmental impact. Dead fish from polluted water, loss of threatened or
endangered species or their habitats that may be irreplaceable, contamination of
land, air or water by pollutant, poor plant health due to air pollution.
 Social impact. The link between abandoned vehicles and neighbourhood effect,
nuisance and mental health of victim, food poisoning and physical health
problems, air pollution and health problems, polluted waters and inability to
fish, pollution effect on amenity values, difficulty in remediation of blighted
areas, graffiti decreasing aesthetic value, regeneration and renovation, poverty
and concentration of factors that cause environmental deterioration.
 Economic impact. Replenishing fish stocks, effect on businesses and
employment, crops damaged by air pollution, tourism, costs of clean up, cost of
loss of time at work due to health impacts, re-offending and the savings from not
doing the work necessary to prevent the crime.
3.2 The wider effects in environmental, social and economic terms.
Consider all the effects in environmental, social and economic terms including the
bigger picture, diffuse impact, cumulative effects and long-term effects.
 Bigger picture (global, transboundary). Fishing offence and global fishing
problem, threatened species and global status of species, air pollution and
climate change, water pollution from the use of pesticides into watercourses and
pollution of global waters, global warming and transboundary air pollution,
 Diffuse impact. Air pollution can have a small impact over a large area, water
pollution in rivers, the sea and on beaches, use of pesticides leaching into
watercourses, radioactivity.
 Cumulative effects. The impact on health from multiple sources of pollution
such as a high number of factories in one area, fly tipping encouraging others to
dump waste in the locality.
 Long term effects. Health impact from radiation or asbestos, persistent
pesticides in soil, irretrievable loss of natural resources (unsustainable fishing by
over-harvesting, over abstraction of water, loss of habitat by the destruction of
micro organisms, loss of grounds water through a pollutant).
3.3 The economic gain for the defendant
Consider the economic gain to the defendant. Profit, cost saving, neglecting to put in
preventative methods, avoiding payment for relevant licence.
 Profit. Tearing down a listed building and profiting from the development,
collecting waste for money and dumping it illegally, illegally trading in wildlife
specimens.
 Cost saving. Disposing of own waste illegally to avoid disposal costs.
 Neglecting preventative methods. Training for workers handling toxic
substances, deliberate failure to install telemetry technology which could have
detected failure of equipment, failure to use preventative equipment when
necessary eg, air filters, noise insulation and protective gear.
 Avoiding payment for licence. Carrying out an act that requires a licence.
 Tax and Duties evasion. Import and/or export duties that have been avoided.
3.4 State of mind of the defendant
Consider the state of mind of the defendant.
 Intentional (deliberate breach of the law). Disposing of pollutant in river
deliberately, collecting wildlife specimens (rare species, bird eggs) for personal
pleasure and no regard for conservation implications, fly tipping waste,
joyriding and burnt out vehicles.
 Reckless (behaviour might lead to an offence). Not preventing pollutant run
off from entering a water body.
 Carelessness/lack of awareness (mitigates offence). Unaware that discharge is
polluting a water body.
3.5 Relationship with regulatory authorities
What is the defendant‟s attitude towards, and co-operation with, either the regulatory
authorities or his/her own workforce?
 Advice from enforcing authority. Complete disregard when an enforcing
authority advises how to abate pollution.
 Warnings from enforcing authority. Failure to take notice when warned of
committing an offence.
 Warnings from workforce. Workforce notifying the employer of unsafe work
methods.
 Disregard an abatement notice. Polluter does nothing to abate the pollution
once a notice has been served.
 Lack of co-operation. Failure to turn up for interviews, failure to turn up to
court and bad attitude towards regulatory authority.
3.6 Assessing the potential harm and risks taken
Assess the potential harm and the risks taken by the defendant.
 Negligence. The risk/potential harm to workers.
 Characteristics of pollutant. Radioactivity and the potential impact on human
and environmental health, high toxicity and pervasiveness means there is a
larger risk and potential harm to be aware, possibility of the spread of disease in
plants, animals or humans.
3.7 Human fatality, serious injury or ill health
Take into account any human fatality, serious injury or ill health as a consequence of the
defendant‟s actions.
 Human fatality.
 Serious injury. For example, loss of limb of loss of sight.
 Ill health. Persistent respiratory problems from air pollution, carcinogens, ease
of access (inadequate security) to toxic chemicals or the spread of disease from
rats.
3.8 Health of flora and fauna
Has animal health or flora health has been adversely affected?
 Animal Health. Endangered species killed or poisoned by pesticides.
 Flora Health. Air pollution affecting crops and plants.
3.9 Offence pattern
What is the defendant‟s offence pattern?
 Re-offender. Previous conviction for the same offence eg, repeat conviction of
fly tipping.
 Repeat offender. Broken the law at least once but has not received a formal
sanction from the court.
 Unrelated previous offences.
 Isolated incident.
3.10 Licensing
What is the defendant‟s licensing status?
 Breach of Licence. Is the defendant carrying on activities outside his or her
licence?
 No licence.
 Fraudulent papers.
3.11 Mitigation
Are there any mitigating circumstances?
 Isolated incident. Is there a good past record of the defendant?
 Awareness. The defendant genuinely and reasonably lacked awareness or
understanding of the regulations specific to the activity in which he was
engaged.
 Guilty plea. Timely plea of guilt.
 Co-operation. Co-operative with enforcing authority.
 Role in the offending activity. A relatively minor role was played by the
individual defendant, little personal involvement.
 Personal position. Genuine hardship or adverse social circumstances of the
defendant.
 Tackling the problem. Steps were taken to remedy the problem as soon as
possible.
In May 2001, the Magistrates‟ Association published useful guidelines on
environmental sentencing. A copy of the guidelines are included in Section 20.
4 Sentencing criteria for environmental offences
“... the law is clear as to where the interests of conservation lie. These are
serious offences. An immediate custodial sentence is usually appropriate to
mark their gravity and the need for deterrence.”
Mr Justice Ouseley in R v Sissen [2000] All ER (D) 2193
Many of the offences contained in environmental legislation carry maximum summary
penalties of £20,000 for each offence. If dealt with at Crown Court there is an unlimited
fine. Magistrates have the ability to commit for sentence to the Crown Court if they feel
their sentencing provisions are insufficient. The prosecution can draw the court‟s
attention towards guideline cases.
The criteria laid down in R v Howe & Son (Engineers) Limited [1999] 2 All EF 249 as
mentioned in the magistrates‟ current sentencing guidelines is important. It emphasises
that fines need to be large enough to bring the message home not only to the
management of an organisation but also to its shareholders. The adverse publicity
accompanying substantial fines may also help to change corporate behaviour. Under R v
Howe, magistrates are entitled to conclude that a company is able to pay any fine
imposed unless it has supplied financial information to support any representations to
the contrary before the hearing. The R v Howe guidelines establish that a deliberate
and/or regular breach of legislation with a view to profit seriously aggravates the
offence.
In deciding on the sentence for an environmental crime there are a number of criteria to
consider including the seriousness of the offence, the defendant‟s ability to pay,
economic gain, the polluter pays principle, abatement costs, prosecution costs, whether
a fine is the most appropriate sentence and the ability to refer the matter to the Crown
Court.
4.1 Seriousness
The extent of the damage and the blameworthiness of the defendant should be reflected
in the level of the fine – how far below the relevant statutory environmental standard the
defendant‟s behaviour actually fell. The potential risk as well as the actual harm brought
about should also be considered. This criterion is considered in some detail in Section 3
above.
4.2 Ability to pay
The fine imposed should reflect the means of the individual or company concerned. A
fine for a small local company or an individual will not have the same economic impact
as it will on a multinational company with a multi-million pound turnover.
In the case of a large company, the fine should be substantial enough to have a real
economic impact and certainly be higher than the cost of complying with the
requirements. For small companies, the fine must be higher than the cost of complying
with the requirements. However, it is necessary to bear in mind that a large fine could
make it difficult to improve conditions in order to comply with the law. Or, the
company may have to close down which would lead to unemployment and affect the
local economy.
The closure of a company should be avoided unless it seems as the only way to stop
what is already a track record of serious repeat offending. Should a re-offending
company be in business at all? bearing in mind that prosecutions are there to protect
employees as well as the public and the environment.
4.3 Economic gain
The revenue gained or cost saved from the crime should be reflected in the sentence.
The gain in monetary terms should be reflected in the sentence. An offender should not
profit from the crime. For example, avoiding landfill tax and dumping the waste
illegally should be punished so that the sentence is higher than the landfill tax.
Otherwise, there is no deterrent because it is cheaper to dump the waste illegally.
4.4 Polluter Pays Principle
The sentence should reflect the value of the overall damage caused by offender: the
environmental, social, and economic impact. One of the over-arching pieces of
international legislation, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)
provides that:
„National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalisation of
environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account
the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution,
with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international
trade and investment.‟
Further, Article 174 of the EU Treaty provides that EU policy on the environment shall:
„aim at a high level of protection taking into account the diversity of the
situations in the various regions of the Community. It shall be based on the
precautionary principle and on the principles that preventative action should
be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at
source and that the polluter should pay.‟
Assessing the overall impact (environmental, social, economic) allows the full costs of
the offence to be recognised and therefore for the Polluter Pays Principle to be applied.
The UK Strategy for Sustainable Development establishes 10 guiding principles, one of
which is making the polluter pay.
4.5 Abatement costs
The sentence should reflect the cost of clean up and restoration. For example, the
resources used to clean up contaminated land or water or the cost to replenish fish stock.
4.6 Prosecution costs
The level of the fine should reflect the process of negotiation and discussion repeated,
repeated requests to abate and site visits are all costly to the public purse. It is important
to reflect this as part of the Polluter Pays Principle. An uncooperative defendant
increases the costs of the enforcing authority.
4.7 Refer to the Crown Court
Is it more appropriate to commit the case for sentencing in crown court where there is
unlimited fine available? In R v Humphrey (2002) a case prosecuted under the Customs
and Excise Management Act 1979 in Isleworth Crown Court, the court recognised the
serious nature of damage in trafficking endangered birds of prey. The trial resulted in a
custodial sentence of over 6 years.
4.8 Form of sentencing
Is another form of sentencing rather than a financial penalty more appropriate? For
example, a custodial sentence, a discharge or community service.
PART II CASE STUDIES
5 Air Quality
There is a wide range of air pollutants. However, there are 8 key pollutants that the
Government has set limits on and is taking steps to reduce. These include; benzene
(from transport fuel) carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter,
sulphur dioxide, and 1,3 butadiene. The main sources of these pollutants are from
burning of fossil fuels and their derivatives in energy production, transport and the
burning of waste.
Sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides contribute to acidification and local air pollution.
They can affect human health and vegetation. Particulate matter (eg, PM10s) comes
from a range of sources but significantly from diesel engines. It can be carried into the
lungs and is a known carcinogen. Ozone occurs naturally but levels are aggravated by
reactions with volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxide. Ozone can cause damage
to the airway lining as well as cause eye and nose irritation. It can also harm vegetation.
Benzene and 1,3 butadiene are carcinogenic and have no absolutely safe level.
Overall air pollution in the UK is in decline, in part due to the reduction in heavy
industry and the use of less polluting power stations. Nevertheless, air pollution remains
a problem. People in the UK exposed to air pollution over the long term are at an
increased risk of premature death, particularly through heart disease. Short-term health
effects include those relating to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems, asthma and
death. It is estimated that there are up to 24,000 premature deaths every year because of
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases brought on by air pollution.
All local authorities are now required to assess the air quality in their area and take
action to reduce local air pollution where necessary. They are also responsible for
controlling and preventing air pollution whether under the Local Air Pollution Control
regime or by tackling illegal burning of waste and other matter. Key areas of legislation
include the Clean Air Act 1993, the Integrated Pollution Control regime contained in
Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) and, in a more limited way,
under the statutory nuisance provisions of Part III of the EPA.
5.1 Black smoke
Legislation
Section 2 of the Clean Air Act 1993 (CAA): the prohibition of dark smoke from
industrial or trade premises.
Maximum penalty: Section 2(5) of the CAA: £20,000 fine on summary conviction.
Related legislation
Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA): statutory nuisance
Facts of the case
After receiving a complaint, an environmental health officer from the local council went
out to investigate smoke in the vicinity of Turner Construction Ltd (TCL). The officer
entered the company site and, on arrival, noted a large bonfire about 4 metres by 3
metres in area and 2 metres in height, emitting thick, dark smoke that rose some 25
metres into the air. The officer noted plastic paint containers, plastic sheeting,
household rubbish and green conifer trees on the bonfire; all of which give rise to black
smoke. Skip loads of mixed building waste were being brought to the site by lorry and
sorted and processed for reuse. TCL was burning rubbish mixed in with the waste
brought to the site to save on the cost of proper disposal, either by incineration or
landfill. The officer spoke with a TCL employee and instructed him to extinguish the
bonfire, which required the use of a JCB digging machine and four loads of earth.
The council had received a number of earlier complaints about odour and smoke
nuisance from bonfires on the site and Mr Turner, the site owner, had been visited 27
times before as a result. An abatement notice served under the EPA was currently in
force on the premises.
The site was close to open grazing land, garden centres and nurseries, a local museum
and a small number of residential homes. Any one of the neighbouring premises could
be affected depending on the direction of the wind and local weather conditions. In the
warmer weather, neighbours liked to leave their windows and doors open and were
therefore likely to be affected by odour/smoke from bonfires and which may in turn
affect the enjoyment of their property. Mr Turner had previously also been advised, in
writing, of the need to instruct his employees to prevent dark smoke being admitted
from bonfires and contrary to section 2 of the CAA. The officer was satisfied that an
offence under these provisions had been committed.
The following day, the council officer revisited the company site and again found thick,
dark smoke coming from a bonfire. At the request of the officer, Mr Turner instructed
one of his employees to extinguish the fire. He was again informed that the emission of
dark smoke was an offence under the CAA. Mr Turner was subsequently advised in
writing of both offences and invited to attend a formal interview. A prosecution was
brought against TCL and the company was convicted on 2 counts of emitting dark
smoke.
In dealing with the case, council officers carried out a large number of out of hours
monitoring to try and resolve ongoing complaints and to witness breaches of the
Abatement Notice. The visits and resources cost the council around £3,000. Such
disregard for pollution control legislation can have a potentially significant effect on the
rising level of local people who suffer allergies and respiratory problems related to air
pollution. The pollution can be very distressing, both mentally and physically, for
residents and businesses. A few months after the conviction, TCL was once again
charged with similar offences.
Assessing seriousness
 The council visited the site over 27 times and undertook out of office hours
monitoring to try and gather concrete evidence. From this and the investigation the
use of resources was very costly to the council and amounted to £3,000.
 TCL was advised on numerous occasions and took no notice of the advice or the
abatement notice once that was served.
 The owner had also been told to advise his employees regarding the correct
practice.
 They were avoiding the disposal costs of the rubbish and therefore gaining
economically. They have an advantage over other companies by not complying
with the law.
 The potential harm of the air pollution must be considered in cases like this. The
air pollution can give rise in level of allergies and respiratory problems in the
surrounding area. Children are more vulnerable to the air pollution.
 There is the economic impact of loss of work due to respiratory problems and
allergies from the air pollution.
 Air pollution damages plants and crops.
 Air pollution can give rise to an impact over a very large area as it diffuses.
Sentencing criteria
 There were no published statements of accounts of TCL. Where a company fails
to produce their accounts it is assumed that they are able to pay any level of fine.
 The economic gain was the cost of the legal disposal route for the rubbish that the
company was avoiding.
 The cost of the investigation must be taken into account. The council costs totalled
£3,000.
 Polluter Pays Principle – costs of all social, economic and environmental damage.
Questions
1. What is the most appropriate sentence for TCL?
2. What would a likely sentence be if TCL were convicted of similar offences some
months after this case?
3. Can Mr Turner be charged and prosecuted?
5.2 Odour
Legislation
Section 6(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA): no person shall carry on
a prescribed process except under an authorisation granted by the enforcing authority.
Section 13(1) of the EPA: the power of the enforcing authority to serve an enforcement
notice.
Section 23(1) of the EPA: it is an offence to contravene or breach section 6(1) of the
EPA.
Maximum Penalty: Section 23(2) of the EPA: £20,000 fine and/or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 3 months on summary conviction, an unlimited fine and/or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years on indictment.
Related legislation
Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances)
Regulations 1991 (EPR)
Facts of the case
Abbott Lloyd Ltd (AL Ltd) operated an animal feed mill process in the village of Little
Sheen. The mill was authorised under section 6(1) of the EPA and Schedule 1 of the
EPR by the enforcing authority, the district council.
The council received complaints from members of the public of a foul and offensive
odour coming from the AL Ltd mill. This resulted in an investigation by the council
who, having made a number of repeated visits to the area over a few weeks, determined
that there was a persistent and offensive odour coming from mill; the complaints having
coincided with an increase in production at the mill and a change by AL Ltd in product
use. AL Ltd was informed that they were in breach of their authorisation conditions
(relating to the control of air emissions/odour) and required to put preventative and/or
abatement measures in place. AL Ltd disputed that they were causing a persistent and
offensive odour. During this time the number of complaints continued to increase: with
up to 150 properties being potentially affected by offensive odour at any one time.
At the request of the council, the local health authority was asked to determine whether
the emissions were harmful to health. The resulting report indicated that the components
of the odour emission were unlikely to be harmful, although serious loss of amenity was
occurring, and further, that the odours could possibly affect those with existing
respiratory problems/breathing difficulties.
The council served an enforcement notice on AL Ltd under section 13 of the EPA
requiring them to install odour abatement equipment. This resulted in AL Ltd
developing an in-house wet-abatement system. However, complaints continued and the
council were of the opinion that the in-house abatement system was not effective. They
considered that AL Ltd was still in breach of their authorisation and that they had not
fully complied with the requirements of the enforcement notice.
As a result AL Ltd proposed to re-engineer the in-house system in an attempt to
improve the effectiveness of the system and the council gave AL Ltd the opportunity to
do so. This, along with an increase in the mill stack emission height, brought some
minor improvements to the odour intensity, however, the council determined that this
was still insufficient and undertook further intensive odour assessment exercises. These
concluded that the odour problem remained. AL Ltd was asked to investigate the
installation of new, purpose-built, odour abatement equipment but they declined. A
decision was therefore made by the council to bring proceedings against AL Ltd in
respect of breaches of their authorisation contrary to section 23(1) of the EPA.
Over 350 individual complaints of offensive odour were made to the council and that
this was unlikely to reflect the much greater number of actual odour events and people
affected. An estimated 750+ hours of council officers‟ time were used in investigating
the on-going offence, taking actions and bringing the prosecution (excluding legal
time/costs). The cost to the enforcing authority amounted to an estimated £4,250.
AL Ltd were taken to court under section 23(1) of the EPA for causing offensive odour
outside their process boundary, contrary to their authorisation requirements. AL Ltd
pleaded not guilty to the offence. AL Ltd were convicted and fined. They were also
required to appoint an independent consultant to produce an odour emission assessment
and identify a BATNEEC (Best Available Technique Not Entailing Excessive Cost)
solution for the mill.
Assessing seriousness
 Up to 150 properties were being affected by offensive odour at any one time. The
emission was unlikely to be harmful to health but serious loss of amenity
occurred.
 The local health authority concluded that the odours could potentially affect those
with existing respiratory problems/breathing difficulties (cumulative effects).
 AL Ltd were informed by the council that they were in breach or their
authorisation conditions and advised to abate/prevent the odour. This advice was
ignored and subsequently an Enforcement Notice was served. AL Ltd made
insufficient progress in abating the odour. They were then asked to carry out an
investigation into the odour and declined to do so.
 The continuing investigation, number of visits, number of complaints to follow up
and the 750 man hours all add up the costs of this prosecution for the enforcing
authority.
 Avoiding paying for preventative methods. There is a need to protect the level
playing field and protect other traders from a commercial advantage.
Sentencing Criteria
Economic gain of the cost avoidance.
Questions
1. What is the most appropriate sentence for AL Ltd?
2. What are the general adverse social, environmental and economic impacts arising
from the offence?
7 Fisheries
Over fishing in either coastal waters or inland watercourses can lead to an unsustainable
level of fish stocks and where the fish are unable to replenish themselves. This is an
international problem. The European Commission recently predicted that a total ban on
fishing for cod, haddock and whiting in UK coastal waters was now necessary.1 An
example of the extent of the problem is an American experience with cod and the
fishing grounds of New England. For many years, trawl nets were used to catch cod. In
the 1980s coastal fisherman of New England realised that cod were disappearing,
although the US government declined to take any preventative action. By 1992, the cod
had gone altogether.
In 2000, 87% of fish stocks around the UK were outside safe biological limits. Over-
fishing challenges fish as a renewable resource and a vital source of food. It also risks
fishing as a way of life to many. It is now subject to strict legislative control that derives
from EU Regulations and the Common Fisheries Policy. For commercial sea fishing,
fish quotas are set annually on a national basis and run for the calendar year from 1
January. The quotas are set on the basis of scientific samples of fish populations and
from the data provided from fishing boats. It is essential that the data as to species,
amounts and area of capture is accurate so that scientists have an accurate picture of fish
stocks and can advise on action to protect species of fish in areas under pressure from
over fishing. If not, then fish stocks are likely to fall below viable levels before
unsustainable fish stocks become detected and corrective action can be taken.
At a local level, the main problem from fishing arises from unlicensed fishing and
poaching. The main regulatory controls are found in the Salmon and Freshwater
Fisheries Act 1975.
1
The Observer, 3 November 2002.
7.1 Poaching fish 1
Legislation
Section 2(4) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (SFFA): any person who
wilfully disturbs spawning fish will (subject to exceptions) be guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: £2,500 fine on summary conviction.
Section 19 of SFFA: the offence of fishing during the closed season.
Maximum penalty: £2,500 fine on summary conviction.
Section 27 of SFFA: the offence of unlicensed fishing.
Maximum penalty: (fishing with a net) £5,000 fine and/or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 3 months on summary conviction, an unlimited fine and/or imprisonment for
a term not exceeding 2 years on indictment.
Section 31 of SFFA: the offence of obstruction of a water bailiff.
Maximum penalty: £2,500 fine on summary conviction.
Section 89 of the Police Act 1996: assault on a constable in the execution of his duty.
Maximum penalty: £5,000 fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months
on summary conviction.
Section 36 of SFFA: water bailiff deemed to be a constable.
Facts of the case
A river has a small run of mainly large (3lbs+) sea trout. The annual declared rod catch
varies between 20 and 60 fish with an average of 35 over the past 10 years. There is no
licensed net fishery within the river catchment. The river is an important coarse fishery
in its lower and middle regions with brown trout fishing in the upper reaches and into
tributaries. The brown trout stocks are supplemented through stocking by two angling
clubs. Sea trout tend to spawn in just 2 localised areas in one of the tributaries. These
two sites are known to be vulnerable to poaching, particularly during the spawning
season when anglers are absent from the fishery.
During a period of low flows in November, a member of the angling club contacted the
Environment Agency (EA) hotline reporting possible poachers. Voices had been heard
after dark near a local pub and flashlights were also seen. Consequently, EA bailiffs
investigated and observed two men operating a seine net (a fishing net that hangs in the
water where its ends are drawn together to encircle the fish) in a pool that was known to
be a sea trout spawning area. One of the poachers ran off but the other was caught.
There was a scuffle in which one of the bailiffs suffered a black eye.
The net was recovered from the river and a bag containing five large sea trout (51bs -
81bs in weight). The items and the fish were seized. The man caught was identified as a
Mr John Fisher (JF) previously prosecuted by the EA on two occasions for unlicensed
fishing with a rod and line. It is estimated by the EA that the fish could have been sold
on for approximately £30. If caught legally, a licence would have cost £60. Further, an
angling club had the rights to fish that particular stretch and charged its members £500
each per season.
JF was charged and found guilty of the following offences:
 Unlicensed fishing under s 27 of SFFA.
 Obstruction of a water bailiff under s 31 of SFFA.
 Assaulting a water bailiff under s 89 of Police Act 1996.
 Fishing during the closed season under s 19 of SFFA.
 Disturbing spawning fish under s 2(4) SFFA.
Assessing seriousness
 Deliberate breach of the law to make money.
 In addition the sea trout population is known to be diminishing and this sort of
activity in a spawning area is aggravating that process.
 The apprehension was resisted and a public servant was assaulted during the
course of conducting his lawful business.
 There had been other fishery-related offences recorded against JF.
Sentencing criteria
The cost of a licence and the money made from the fish.
Question
1. What is the most appropriate sentence for JF?
7.4 False landing declarations
Legislation
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2847/93 (as amended by Council Regulation 2846/98):
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.
The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Control Measures) Order 2000, SI
2000/51 (SFO) made under section 30(2) of the Fisheries Act 1981.
Maximum penalty: Article 4(3) of the SFO: £50,000 fine on summary conviction, an
unlimited fine on indictment.
Facts of the case
Allegations of fish being landed and passed through a sales agent without being
declared prompted a lengthy investigation by the Investigation Branch of the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
All fishing vessel masters and owners are responsible for keeping an accurate record of
all species of fish caught and landed. Sales notes from sales agents have to be submitted
to DEFRA so that there is a cross-check on the figures from the fishing boat. Some
species are subject to catch limits and the data provided is used to ensure that these
limits are not exceeded. When the UK‟s fish quota for a species is reached then fishing
for that species should stop. This is so that the fish stock can replenish naturally and so
that we do not over-harvest the waters.
Fish quotas are set annually and run from 1 January. They set on the basis of scientific
samples of fish populations and from the data provided from fishing boats. It is essential
that the data as to species, amounts and area of capture is accurate so that scientists have
an accurate picture of fish stocks and can advise on action to protect species of fish in
areas under pressure from over fishing. If not, then fish stocks may fall below viable
levels and corrective action can be taken.
Enquiries by DEFRA revealed that large quantities of high value fish had been mis-
described over a long period of anything up to a year for a large number of fishing
boats. The premises of the sales agent, Dock Trawler Agents Ltd (DTAL), were
searched and a further set of accounts were found at the premises which showed that the
description of the types of fish landed had been changed to other types of fish which
were not the subject of landing restrictions.
DTAL had assisted in the deception by facilitating the sale of the mis-described fish
outside the normal fish auction and had provided false sales notes to DEFRA.
DTAL, ten individual skippers and six owners pleaded guilty to some 256 offences of
falsifying log book entries and landing declarations and the filling in of false landing
declarations with DEFRA. The offences were contrary to the regulations introduced by
the EU through the Common Fisheries Policy. The quota system is designed to protect
any species of fish from over fishing and therefore to conserve stocks for the benefit of
public fishermen alike. Breach of the regulations is a serious offence, each carrying a
maximum fine of £50,000.
DTAL is the common factor in all the offences. It auctioned off all the fish involved in
the offences admitted by the masters and owners. DEFRA‟s Investigation Branch raided
the company‟s offices and uncovered what was a substantial and widespread abuse of
the regulations, designed it would seem to protect the owner‟s quotas by mis-describing
substantial portions of their catch and by auctioning off „black fish‟. DTAL was also
seeking to attract business from the rival sales agents. The value of the „black fish‟ sold
during this periods was in the order of £180,000. The court acknowledged that all
appropriate taxes and duties were paid and that it was the quota that was avoided.
None of the defendants originated the deception but simply fitted in with the practices
being operated by the market. No one informed DEFRA.
The type of fishing meant that the skippers could not just target sole or plaice, not
knowing until the catch has been brought abroad what proportion of fish each type had
been caught. There are concerns about having to throw back dead or dying fish when
the catch put the skipper over the quota. However, the ability exists for a skipper to
utilise another Master‟s unused quota.
DTAL was established to keep a fish market in their area and they have struggled to
survive. The present managing director was aware of what was going on and turned a
blind eye to the activities of the auctioneer who was at the centre of what was
happening.
Assessing seriousness
 The defendants‟ action was a commercial gain for all the fishermen who sought to
comply with the quotas as well as the other auction houses.
 There was deliberate and prolonged breach of legislation. The offences were
committed with full knowledge of the penalties the offence attracted.
 Additional landing occurred in this area that might otherwise have gone elsewhere
because false landing declarations were filed by DTAL.
 Over-harvesting waters can lead to unsustainable stocks and the fish cannot
replenish themselves.
 Profiting from the crime through the economic gain in profits of fish caught that
should not have been caught.
 The defendants all acknowledged their culpability, regretted their involvement and
provided timely guilty pleas.
Sentencing criteria
Economic gain: the level of fine should reflect the profit from the crime.
Questions
1. What is the most appropriate sentence for DTAL?
2. Were DTAL more culpable than, say, the skippers?
3. What is the most appropriate sentence for the owners?
3. What is the most appropriate sentence for the skippers?
17 Wildlife and nature conservation
Nature conservation includes with the preservation of flora and fauna ie, all members of
the plant kingdom including mosses, phytoplankton, lichen and fungi as well as all
birds, mammals, fish and insects. It also considers the habitats of these various species.
The Oxford Dictionary of English defines nature as „the phenomena of the physical
world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and
products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations‟.
The intricate network of ecosystems, habitats and species comprising Biodiversity
provides the support systems that sustain human existence. It provides many of the
essentials of life - our oxygen, water, food, clothing, health and relaxation. The value of
biodiversity extends from the spiritual benefits to be gained from contact with nature, to
the economic potential of wild species for new sources of food or medicines. This
includes the potential for new products being produced through advances in
biotechnology.
In recent years, the public has become increasingly aware of the importance of
preventing further loss of wildlife and preserving our remaining biodiversity. After
habitat destruction, illegal trade and conservation offences are among the most
significant dangers faced by endangered species.
High financial rewards and low risk of detection can create an incentive to commit these
crimes, and so there arises a need to use the range of appropriate penalties by way of
counterbalance. Wildlife trade offenders have been shown to be involved in other types
of crime and to be involved in organised networks as well as on an independent basis.
The Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora (CITES) bans international trade in endangered species and regulates trade in
species that could become endangered by trade and is implemented through European
and domestic legislation. European Council Regulation 338/97 (as amended) on the
protection of species of wild fauna and flora incorporates all of the provisions of CITES
as well as additional stricter measures concerning European species and stricter import,
housing, and transport conditions for live specimens; this has been transposed into the
UK by the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA) and the Control of
Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997 (COTES). Species native
to the UK are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA). This was
amended under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW) specifically
making some offences under the WCA arrestable.
Detailed guidance on sentencing for wildlife trade and conservation offences prepared
for the Magistrates‟ Association can be found in Section 20.
17.1 Bird dealer
Legislation
Section 6(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) as amended by Schedule
12 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 2000: any person that sells birds other than a
bird included in Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the WCA shall be guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Section 21(1) of the WCA: £5,000 and/or imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 6 months on summary conviction.
Each specimen can be treated as if it were the subject of a separate offence.
Facts of the case
Mr Twill (T), a well-known bird-breeder and dealer, was known to be selling large
numbers of finches. He was importing a large number of consignments, principally
from Hungary, and had been doing so for a number of years, to supply demand. Most of
the species he sold were listed in Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the WCA, which allowed them
to be sold alive without the need for a specific licence under section 6(1) of the WCA
provided they were ringed and had been bred in captivity.
A police investigation found that the imported birds were not in good health that in each
consignment, a number of birds had died in transit. There was also strong evidence that
the finches were being fitted with oversize rings and openly advertised and sold
throughout the UK.
Closed rings can only be fitted to birds at an early infant stage. With small British
finches, rings would need to be applied to the baby bird at between five and seven days
old. With larger birds, the rings may be fitted up to ywo weeks of age, after which the
ankle joint becomes too large for the correct-sized ring to pass on or off. The rings are
designed to fit in such a way as to be able to freely rotate without undue slack.
Therefore an oversized ring, capable of being fitted to an adult bird becomes obvious
once a small degree of experience has been obtained. The oversize rings fitted in this
case suggest they were fitted when the bird was older and therefore not bred in
captivity. The finches sold for between £80 and £180 a pair and, over the years, the
shipments would have been worth £10,000s.
T was charged and found guilty of selling species listed in Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the
WCA that had not been bred in captivity. It was clear that he knew that his activities
were illegal and contrary to legislation but that he had persisted with them for financial
gain. T had no previous convictions.
Assessing seriousness
 Deliberate breach of the law
 Economic gain: profited by £10,000s
 Cruelty
Sentencing criteria
The type of sentence should reflect the profits made.
Questions
1. What is the most appropriate sentence for T?
2. Can the case be referred to Crown Court for sentencing?
17.7 Illegal trade: taxidermy
Legislation
Section 1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (FCA): a person is guilty of
forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it
to induce somebody to accept it as genuine.
Maximum penalty: £5,000 fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months
on summary conviction, 10 years imprisonment on indictment.
Regulation 8(1) of the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement)
Regulations 1997 (COTES): a person who sells or offers for sale any specimen of a
species listed in Annex A of Council Regulation 338/97 shall be guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Regulation 8(8) of COTES £5,000 fine and/or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 3 months on summary conviction, an unlimited fine and/or
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years on indictment.
Facts of the case
Mr Stevens (S) was the owner of a taxidermy shop in London. Following a report by the
member of the public, the police had reason to believe that some of the taxidermy
specimens on sale in the shop were of endangered species. These included tiger, gorilla,
chimpanzee and leopard.
A number of these species are listed in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97
on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein. The
Regulation lists species of conservation concern in one of four annexes, depending on
the extent to which they are endangered by trade. Species of greatest concern are listed
in Annex A and are critically endangered and are normally banned from commercial
trade. Annex A specimens are also prohibited from being sold or purchased in EU
countries, unless an exemption certificate has been issued.
Police officers searched the premises and home of S and found over 100 stuffed
specimens including tigers, leopards, elephant tusk and birds of prey. He was
subsequently charged with offences under Regulation 8(1) of COTES, for selling and
offering for sale specimens on Annex A without an Article 10 certificate. He was also
charged with offences of forgery contrary to section 1 of the FCA.
Assessing seriousness
 Biodiversity provides the support systems that sustain human existence. It
provides many of the essentials of life – our oxygen, water, food, clothing,
health and relaxation. The value of biodiversity extends from the spiritual
benefits to be gained from contact with nature, to the economic potential of wild
species for new sources of food or medicines. This includes the potential for
new products being produced through advances in biotechnology.
 Revenue from the sales of taxidermy specimens. Items sell from £100s to £1,000s
per item eg, tiger skin rug can fetch £2,500.
 Trading in species from Annex A. These are critically endangered and the loss of
each specimen can seriously effect the local and global populations. This will also
have a knock on effect on sub species.
 Misleading the licensing authorities by submitting forged applications.
 Long term: loss can lead to an unsustainable population, which in turn will lead to
extinction, the irretrievable loss of a species.
 In mitigation, he entered a guilty plea and it was argued that there was no evidence
that any of the specimens were wild taken and some were antique.
Sentencing criteria
 The polluter should pay: the environmental, social and economic cost is the
potential loss of biodiversity and should be reflected in the penalty given.
 S is profiting from the crime and this should be reflected in the level of the
sentence.
Question
What is the most appropriate sentence for S?
PART III FURTHER INFORMATION AND APPENDICES
18.1 Quick reference guide
Each case study covers a range of issues in relation to environmental sentencing. This
quick reference guide provides, at a glance, which case studies relate to any given
environmental impact or issue. This may assist in deciding which particular case study
to cover.
Issue Raised Case Section Page
Animal Health/ Poaching fish 1 7.1
Loss of Biodiversity
Poaching fish 2 7.2
Effluent into river 10.2
Bees poisoned by spray 12.1
Conditions of use of pesticide 12.2
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Sheep dip contamination 16.3
Bird dealer 17.1
Birds of prey: captive breeding 17.2
Geese shooting 17.3
Herbal medicines 17.4
Illegal trade in birds 17.5
Illegal trade in reptiles 17.6
Taxidermy 17.7
Avoiding Costs Black smoke 5.1
Poaching fish 1 7.1
Poaching fish 2 7.2
Unlicensed fishing 7.3
GMO breech of licence 8.1
Chemical in eyes 9.2
Timber preservative 9.3
Escape of acid gas 10.3
Lost radioactivity source 13.1
Radioactivity in the laboratory 13.2
Dust 14.1
Poor Housing 14.2
Avoiding trade waste contract 15.1
Fly tipping: branches & concrete 15.2
Dumping from skips 15.4
Dumping on farmland 15.5
Scrap in residential area 15.8
Litter abatement order 15.9
Producer packaging responsibility 15.10
Human sewage 16.1
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Sheep dip contamination 16.3
Taxidermy 17.7
Cumulative effects Odour 5.2
Fly tipping: branches and concrete 15.2
Fly tipping: children’s party waste 15.3
Dumping on farmland 15.5
Rubbish and rats in rear garden 15.7
Deliberate breach of law False landing declaration 7.4
Avoiding trade waste contract 15.1
Fly tipping: branches and concrete 15.2
Dumping on farmland 15.5
Diffuse impact Black smoke 5.1
Odour 5.2
Illegal meat imports 6.1
False landing declarations 7.4
GMO breach of licence 8.1
Timber preservative 9.3
Effluent into river 10.2
Avoiding trade waste contract 15.1
Dumping from skips 15.4
Litter abatement order 15.9
Human sewage 16.1
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Sheep dip contamination 16.3
Economic loss of income Colourless gas discharge 10.1
Economic loss to other Bees poisoned by spray 12.1
business
Dust 14.1
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Economic loss to property Colourless gas discharge 10.1
values
Landfill site odours 15.6
Scrap in residential areas 15.8
Human health impact Black smoke 5.1
Odour 5.2
Asbestos 9.1
Chemical in eyes 9.2
Timber preservative 9.3
Colourless gas discharge 10.1
Escape of acid gas 10.3
Dog fouling 11.1
Dust 14.1
Poor housing 14.2
Avoiding trade waste contract 15.1
Dumping from skips 15.4
Rubbish and rats in rear garden 15.7
Litter abatement order 15.9
Human sewage 16.1
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Sheep dip contamination 16.3
Level playing field Illegal meat imports 6.1
(commercial standards)
Poaching fish 1 7.1
Poaching fish 2 7.2
Producer packaging responsibility 15.10
Long term impacts False landing declarations 7.4
GMO breach of licence 8.1
Asbestos 9.1
Timber preservative 9.3
Effluent into river 10.2
Bees poisoned by spray 12.1
Conditions of use of pesticide 12.2
Dust 14.1
Rubbish and rats in rear garden 15.7
Producer packaging responsibility 15.10
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Birds of prey: captive breeding 17.2
Herbal medicines 17.4
Illegal trade in birds 17.5
Illegal trade in reptiles 17.6
Taxidermy 17.7
Nuisance Odour 5.2
Dust 14.1
Poor housing 14.2
Organised crime Illegal meat imports 6.1
False landing declarations 7.4
Bird dealer 17.1
Illegal trade in birds 17.5
Illegal trade in reptiles 17.6
Plant health Black smoke 5.1
GMO breach of licence 8.1
Potential harm to humans Lost radioactivity source 13.1
Radioactivity in the laboratory 13.2
Unregistered cobalt source 13.3
Fly tipping: branches & concrete 15.2
Profit/economic gain Illegal meat imports 6.1
Poaching fish 1 7.1
Poaching fish 2 7.2
False landing declarations 7.4
Dumping from skips 15.4
Scrap in residential area 15.8
Bird dealer 17.1
Birds of prey: captive breeding 17.2
Herbal medicines 17.4
Illegal trade in birds 17.5
Taxidermy 17.7
Re-offending Poaching fish 1 7.1
Escape of acid gas 10.3
Lost radioactive source 13.1
Dumping on farmland 15.5
Human sewage 16.1
Pollution in surface drains 16.2
Repeat visits/warnings Black smoke 5.1
Odour 5.2
Timber preservative 9.3
Radioactivity in the laboratory 13.2
Dust 14.1
Poor housing 14.2
Dumping from skips 15.4
Landfill site odours 15.6
Rubbish and rats in rear garden 15.7
Scrap in residential area 15.8
Litter abatement order 15.9
18.2 Judicial opinions
The following opinions have been provided, on the facts of each case study, by district
judges that regularly work in the magistrates‟ court. They should only be consulted and
discussed by delegates after full consideration of the case studies.
Case study 5.1: Black Smoke
Treat as very serious. Numerous aggravating features set out in “Assessing seriousness”
plus repeat offence. Fine £12,000 - £15,000. Early guilty plea credit would reduce to
£8,000 - £10,000 plus £3,000 costs.
Case study: 5.2 Odour
This should be treated as very serious aggravating features as set out in “assessing
seriousness”. Pleaded not guilty, so no s. 152 early guilty plea credit. Fine £15,000 -
£20,000 plus prosecution costs of £4,250. Might even consider committal for sentence
to enable greater fine to be imposed.
Case study 7.1: Poaching Fish 1
Treat as serious – previous convictions plus assault on bail if aggravates. Means will be
all-important plus remember totality principle. If previous for violence consider custody
for assault. Otherwise fines in the region of £1,000 plus costs (depending on means) and
impose a tagged curfew order for assault upon Constable.
Confiscate fishing equipment.
Case study 7.4: False Landing Declarations
Treat as extremely serious. Credit for guilty plea to be given.
 Company (assuming multiple offences) should produce accounts. Suggest £25,000
fine on each of four counts plus prosecution costs and no separate penalty on
balance of charges.
 Owners (same basis) £10,000 on each of four counts plus no separate penalty on
balance plus prosecution costs.
 Skippers (individual means highly relevant) £1,000 - £3,000 on each of four
counts plus prosecution costs with no separate penalty on balance.
19 Useful contacts
The Magistrates’ Association
28 Fitzroy Square, London W1T 6DD
tel. 020 7387 2353, website: www.magistrates-association.org.uk
The Magistrates Association represents lay magistrates who deal with over 96% of all
criminal cases in England and Wales. The Association consults and represents its
members, promotes good practice, delivers and supports training and provides
information, advice and assistance to its members and the general public
Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR
tel. 020 7238 5603, website: www.defra.gov.uk
The Government department that deals with food, air, land, water and people. It aims to
bring sustainable development by providing a better environment at home and
internationally, and sustainable use of natural resources. DEFRA aims to bring
economic prosperity through sustainable farming, fishing, food, water and other
industries that meet consumers‟ requirements.
The Environment Agency
Rio House, Waterside Drive, Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD
tel. 01454 624 400, website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk
The Environment Agency was established by the Environment Act 1995 to protect or
enhance the environment, taken as a whole so as to make the contribution towards
attaining the objective of achieving sustainable development.‟
The Environment Agency is the main prosecuting body for environmental crimes and
covers the whole of England and Wales‟s eight regional offices. The head legal team is
at Bristol.
Environmental Law Foundation
Suite 309, 16 Baldwin Gardens, Hatton Square, London EC1N 7RJ
tel. 020 7404 1030, website: www.elflaw.org
The Environmental Law Foundation is a UK wide charity whose primary purpose is to
secure access to environmental justice for all. Through its network of members ELF
links communities and individuals to legal and technical expertise to help prevent
damage to the environment and to improve the quality for all.
National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)
PO Box 8000, London SE11 5EN
tel. 020 7238 8000, website: www.ncis.co.uk
NCIS works on behalf of all UK law enforcement agencies in the fight against serious
and organised crime. They recently set up the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence
Unit.
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
Panda House, Weyside Park, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1XR
tel. 01483 426 444, website: www.WWF-uk.org
WWF is the largest and most experienced independent conservation organisation
promoting the conservation and protection of endangered species
School of Legal Studies, University of Wolverhampton
Molineux Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB
tel. 01902 321 058, website: www.wlv.ac.uk/sls
The School of Legal Studies at Wolverhampton is home to one of the largest and most
comprehensive law schools in the country with a reputation for high quality provision,
and is one of the few law schools to offer the whole range of academic and professional
law courses.
20 Appendices
Fining of companies for Environmental and Health and Safety Offences
Sentencing for Wildlife Trade and Conservation Offences